4.6 Article

Glaucoma Diagnostic Accuracy of Ganglion Cell-Inner Plexiform Layer Thickness: Comparison with Nerve Fiber Layer and Optic Nerve Head

期刊

OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 119, 期 6, 页码 1151-1158

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.12.014

关键词

-

资金

  1. Carl Zeiss Meditec
  2. Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, California

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine the diagnostic performance of macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) thickness measured with the Cirrus high-definition optical coherence tomography (HD-OCT) ganglion cell analysis (GCA) algorithm (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) to discriminate normal eyes and eyes with early glaucoma and to compare it with that of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and optic nerve head (ONH) measurements. Design: Evaluation of diagnostic test or technology. Participants: Fifty-eight patients with early glaucoma and 99 age-matched normal subjects. Methods: Macular GCIPL and peripapillary RNFL thicknesses and ONH parameters were measured in each participant, and their diagnostic abilities were compared. Main Outcome Measures: Area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic. Results: The GCIPL parameters with the best AUCs were the minimum (0.959), inferotemporal (0.956), average (0.935), superotemporal (0.919), and inferior sector (0.918). There were no significant differences between these AUCs and those of inferior quadrant (0.939), average (0.936), and superior quadrant RNFL (0.933); vertical cup-to-disc diameter ratio (0.962); cup-to-disc area ratio (0.933); and rim area (0.910), all P>0.05. Conclusions: The ability of macular GCIPL parameters to discriminate normal eyes and eyes with early glaucoma is high and comparable to that of the best peripapillary RNFL and ONH parameters. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. Ophthalmology 2012;119:1151-1158 (C) 2012 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据